|
Post by benkovski on May 26, 2008 20:01:53 GMT -5
Don’t they understand that the whole “historical” concept behind the politics of present day Macedonia is due almost entirely to Tito’s pro-Serbian propaganda and his pro-Macedonian nonsense, which was largely fueled by his deep desires to extend the Yugoslavian borders to the Aegean? The people who today designate themselves as ethnic Macedonians are not to blame for the fact that they’ve been pushed to read a version of history that resembles a fairytale. It seems that even today the Macedonian political notions are still the backwater of the old Serbian propaganda. You don’t need to be a historian to make the connection; you don’t even need to be literate. All pro-Macedonian propaganda is based on anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian, and anti-Albanian statements and claims. Even though, I’m sure that anti-Serbian propaganda can be found in Macedonia, it is only trivial in comparison to the other three streams. Furthermore, Tito was able to use the political policies present in Serbia and Greece in the late 19th and early 20th century to establish the regional identity of being Macedonian as an ethnic one. After the Balkan wars, when most of Macedonia was annexed by Serbia and Greece, both countries were faced with about 3 million people who resided in Macedonia and didn’t feel Serbian or Greek. Both Serbia and Greece worked out harsh assimilation policies, the main goal of which was to de-Bulgarise the region. Serbia called the Macedono-Bulgarians ‘South-Serbians’, while Greece called them ‘Bulgarophone Greeks’, and later ‘Slavophone Greeks’. In both the Serbian ruled Macedonia, and the Greek ruled Macedonia it was a crime to call oneself Bulgarian. Bulgarian schools and churches were closed and it was forbidden to speak Bulgarian or rather, the Macedono-Bulgarian dialect, in public. This was the spark that forced the Macedono-Bulgarians to look for an ethnic identity, which was not penalized by the Serbian or Greek governments. Hence, when Serbia and Greece would send their ‘Black Hand’ type assimilation gangs to roam around Macedonian villages, a lot of the local population declared themselves as Serbian or Greek. The vast majority of Macedono-Bulgarians, however, declared themselves Macedonian since that was the name of the region in which they lived. A Macedonian identification was viewed in a much more favourable manner as opposed to identifying as a Bulgarian. It is precisely these Serbian and Greek policies that Tito made use of in his quest for domination of the South-West Balkans. Judging by the actions of Greeks today, it appears that the majority of them are confused about their own history in a similar way as the Macedonians. Macedonians are not to blame. The Greek fight is not against the common Macedonian folk, it is with the age long propaganda that has been instilled and still is being preached in Macedonia. Present day Macedonians have grown up in a world where their great grandparents were punished for calling themselves Bulgarian, both by the Serbian and the Greek governments. They now read history books that are purposefully filled with inaccurate information, falsifications, and plain garbage. Present day Macedonians are being taught that Greeks, Bulgarians, and Albanians are their birth enemies. Bottom line is, Greeks are barking up the wrong tree, milking a dead cow, call it whatever you want. The issue with Macedonia’s claim toward ancient Macedonian history is not going to be resolved by random beatings of hard working truck drivers, or by vetoing Macedonia’s accession to the EU or NATO, or by closing Greek air space. The first step would be to address the propaganda that converted Bulgarians into today’s Macedonians. And the fact that Greece is pointing fingers at Macedonia, and ironically telling them that they don’t know their own history; Greeks should take some of their own advice. Take a look at some international books on the Macedonian question alongside with something on the topic of pro-Yugoslavian politics and you will see that the first finger you should point is at Serbian politics of the 20th century. The second finger to point should be facing you. As stated above, Greece alongside Serbia, managed to erase the Bulgarian identity of many Macedono-Bulgarians. Hence, now they look to the history of the territory on which they live rather than looking at the history of the people that live there. Oh yeah, and.. Hi
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 26, 2008 20:36:29 GMT -5
^ Let me tell you, if tito was pro-serbian then Vardar would never have been renamed to what it is today but would had been called southern serbia. Don't you know about Tito and his theory of a stronger Yugoslavia means a smaller serbia?. I personally don't care if vardar is a state state today, but l do care about it being called what it is.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on May 26, 2008 22:47:05 GMT -5
Novi, yeah, Tito didnt force them to declare Southern Serbs. He did make them "Macedonians", another mean to deBulgarize them.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 26, 2008 23:46:55 GMT -5
^ Ioan, am l wrong what l have said above?. This current name for vardar actually also de-serbianised the population, it even lost religious monuments and buildings. Tito was the ONLY communist who promoted religion for vardar, while all the other communists promoted atheism.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on May 27, 2008 4:30:06 GMT -5
The difference is there wasnt much to deserbanize in fyrom. They had BULGARIAN consciousness, not serbian. The macedonian teory was also crafted by serb nationalists, when it was obvious u ll never turn them into Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on May 27, 2008 13:58:46 GMT -5
Pazar, it seems you must have misread the post. I never said that Tito called the Macedono-Bulgarians ‘South Serbians’. The Serbian politics from about 50 years prior to Tito were designating Macedono-Bulgarians as ‘South Serbs’. Tito was simply able to play on this pro-Serbian propaganda that had been enforced in the region for decades before him.
As Ioan mentioned, Tito was already well aware that the vast majority of Macedono-Bulgars will never accept a Serb self identification. And, as I mentioned above, in the late 19th and early 20th c. it was considered a harshly punishable crime to call oneself a Bulgarian in Macedonia. Hence, most people officially identified with the regional identity of being Macedonian rather than their ethnic Bulgarian one. Tito was able to use this when forming his pro-Macedonian politics, which were almost entirely based on the pro-Serbian politics of his predecessors. In doing so, he was applying well known Roman tactics .. divide and conquer. His primary goals were to detach Macedonians from Bulgarians as much as possible and to make them believe that they had some age long irredentist rights to the ancient Macedonians.. The point of it all was to expand Yugoslavia’s realm.
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on May 27, 2008 14:19:17 GMT -5
Additionally, there was a point in time when Stalin was strongly encouraging Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to unite into one giant communist state in the Balkans. Georgi Dimitrov was also told to support Tito’s actions and at that time Russia was avoiding ethnic designations of the people living in Macedonia. They were simply referred to as ‘Macedonian communists’ who both Tito and Dimitrov were supposed to support regardless of their ethnic identification and spiritual beliefs. Dimitrov was happy to comply with Russia’s requests / demands but he was pushing to have Sofia as the capital of the potential new and vast Balkan communist state. Tito of course was not happy about that amongst other things, and so he detached Yugoslavia from Stalin’s communism. Hence, communist Bulgaria’s politics toward Macedonia were nonexistent. Bulgaria was trying to remain Russia’s little brother and satisfy Stalin’s hopes that a union between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia was still possible at some other time.
The lack of Bulgarian politics toward Macedonia during communism truly strengthened Tito’s pro-Ancient Macedonian propaganda. As you can see it’s still alive today.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on May 27, 2008 17:43:15 GMT -5
Interesting Benkovski -- not a usual stand by a Slav Macedonian (judging by your nickname I assume you are one; correct me if I am wrong) from what I've been used to. ^ Let me tell you, if tito was pro-serbian then Vardar would never have been renamed to what it is today but would had been called southern serbia. Don't you know about Tito and his theory of a stronger Yugoslavia means a smaller serbia?. I personally don't care if vardar is a state state today, but l do care about it being called what it is. Weaker Serbia doesn't automatically mean weaker Serbian influence; you guys exercised great influence in other republics such as Croatia & Bosnia as well as in the autonomous 'pokrajinas' such as Kosova & Vojvodina; you were overrepresented despite being outnumbered by the locals. Everyone, in the end, saw Tito's treatment of his/her own ethnic group as biased & negative.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 27, 2008 19:01:50 GMT -5
"Tito was able to use this when forming his pro-Macedonian politics, which were almost entirely based on the pro-Serbian politics of his predecessors. In doing so, he was applying well known Roman tactics .. divide and conquer. His primary goals were to detach Macedonians from Bulgarians as much as possible and to make them believe that they had some age long irredentist rights to the ancient Macedonians.. The point of it all was to expand Yugoslavia’s realm."
Based on pro-serbian politics, are you out of your mind?. In my opinion he should had denationalised everybody.
Tito of course was not happy about that amongst other things, and so he detached Yugoslavia from Stalin’s communism. Hence, communist Bulgaria’s politics toward Macedonia were nonexistent. Bulgaria was trying to remain Russia’s little brother and satisfy Stalin’s hopes that a union between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia was still possible at some other time.
Tito was supported by the west, pure and simple. It was Russia who during the 19th century wanted a greater bulgaria, hence why a Bulgarian Exarchate was formed and was operating in Vardar. The Exarchate was a tool to convert and influence people, during that time the people were split between the Exarchate and the Patriarch.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on May 27, 2008 20:01:27 GMT -5
benovski, according to your name you are macedonian, stop acting tartar.
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on May 27, 2008 21:06:01 GMT -5
Donnie, all people come from monkeys, only Macedonians come from Bulgarians. With regards to the name ending in ski, you should know that such suffixes are based mostly on political reasons rather than ethnic ones. The ski suffix is predominant in Vardar Macedonia. On the other hand, in Aegean Macedonia the ski suffix is not as popular. This suffix is also present in Bulgaria, but is not confined to Pirin Macedonia. Furthermore, the Bulgarian ov or ev, and the Serbian ich are also politically influenced. For example, Russians use the suffix ich for their middle names and the suffix ov or ev for their last names. I am not well acquainted with the political reasoning behind the styling of middle names and surnames, so if anyone has more details maybe they can post them. No Pazar, I think I’m sane. It seems that you are unaware that prior Tito, all politics in Macedonia were pro-Serbian and anti-Bulgarian. As I mentioned earlier, after the Balkan wars the Bulgarian population in Macedonia was designated as South Serbians by the ruling Serbian government. Tito played on these Serbian policies, and he knew that by instilling a sense of ancient Macedonian irredentism he’d be killing two birds with one stone. Macedonians would detach themselves from their Bulgarianness and would look toward claiming the territorial rights to Greek Macedonia. You’re absolutely right! That’s exactly what he was doing. Tito wanted to denationalize his citizens in order to have all of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedono-Bulgarians, (and the Bulgarians in the western outlands) call themselves Yugoslavians. The interesting thing is that the largest amount of people who declared themselves as Yugoslavs were the Bulgarians in the western outlands. They chose that path, similarly to Bulgarians declaring themselves as Macedonians from about 50 years earlier, in order to avoid punishment by members of the Black Hand and other similar ultra-nationalistic gangs that were sent into Bulgarian villages on the orders of the Serbian government. These ultra-nationals terrorized the Bulgarian populations in Yugoslavia until they renounced their Bulgarian self-consciousness. If you are wondering why the pressure was mostly focused on denationalizing the Bulgarians instead of Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes; it was because the vast majority populations of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were within Yugoslavia. While, on the other hand, Bulgarians had/have their own neighboring state. Tito was afraid of Bulgarian irredentism, and this is mostly why he focused on Bulgarians. If Yugoslavia didn’t fall apart, it is likely that the terror campaigns of denationalization would have been extended to the other Yugoslavian state citizens. After WWII, Tito was only supported by the west since he separated himself and his state from Stalin. This is true, and it was achieved when all territories that were predominantly populated with Bulgarians were taken away from the Ottoman Empire and returned to Bulgaria. Hence the Russo-Turkish war.. resulting in the Treaty of San Stefano. This is also true, but you should know that at times the Bulgarian Exarchate priests advised the people to identify with the Greek Patriarchate in order to avoid persecution, since the Patriarchate wanted to assimilate the population into the Greek state. Terrorreign, seems you don’t know the meaning of the term Tatar or Tartar. The way you used it, is the common ‘lack of knowledge based propaganda’ that now plagues Vardar Macedonia.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 27, 2008 21:42:00 GMT -5
"benovski, according to your name you are macedonian, stop acting tartar."
Terro, l'm serious this time, one more dumb post, l will be using the delete key.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 27, 2008 21:50:06 GMT -5
"No Pazar, I think I’m sane."
I know your sane, its just figure of speech.
"Tito wanted to denationalize his citizens in order to have all of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedono-Bulgarians, (and the Bulgarians in the western outlands) call themselves Yugoslavians."
In theory, his idea is good, but nationalism still somewhat persisted, he should had abolished all states. I have to say he did crack down on some nationalists. I agree the western outlands peoples are Bulgarian nationals.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 27, 2008 23:02:57 GMT -5
I'm going to quote from a few sources, be patient, it will take me awhile to write all this down:
Its about the Macedonian question between the two world wars!.
During the period separating the two world wars, i.e, from the end of 1918 to April 1941, the Macedonian question remained very much alive, continuing to be a subject of dispute between Bulgaria on the one hand and Yugoslavia and Greece on the other. The numerous attempts at a solution came to grief chiefly as a result of the obstinacy of Bulgaria, whose attitude on this question was greatly influenced by IMRO. From the assassination of Alexander Stambolisky, who was a determined opponent of IMRO, to the accession to power of the Velchev-Georgiev group, the right wing of IMRO war virtually a determining factor in the attitude of Bulgaria toward Yugoslavia and Greece, which were reluctant to abandon their positions. With the rise to power of ZVENO, IMRO's influence ceased: Vancha Mihailov fled to Turkey, and several prominent leaders of his group were arrested. Elisabeth Barker was only partly justified when she claimed that the Macedonian question had disappeared from international politics during the last four years even before the emergence of ZVENO, the comintern had made the Macedonian question an instrument of its destructive activity in the Balkans. The left wing of the "United IMRO" had already consolidated its positions, and gathered round itself all the leftist elements in the Balkans. In their attitude toward Yugoslavia, which was the chief object of attack from both sides, and, at the same time, the chief factor in deciding the Macedonian question, both the right and the left wing of this organization were equally hostile. This organization was also inimically disposed toward Greece and Bulgaria, and was emerging ever more clearly as the advocate of the Communist revolution in the Balkans, the object of which was to produce an independant and free Macedonia. Since, as Hugh Seton-Watson correctly points out, "the real Macedonian problem was the problem of a Yugoslav Macedonia," the attitude of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia toward the Macedonian question was of great importance. It was in the interplay of these factors, rather than in the official relations of the three Balkan states concerned, that the Macedonian question developed between the two world wars.
It was Dimo Kazasov who pointed out that hatred of the Serbs was the principal motive of all shades of opinion among those championing the Macedonian cause, after the Second Balkan War and World War 1, refused to reconcile themselves with a fait accompli. These groups persisted in spreading distrust of the Serbian regime among the population of Southern Serbia. Toward the end of 1912, the non-Slav national minorities in Southern Serbia began to unite in resisting the new situation. A delegation of Macedonian Turkssubmitted to the peace conference in Lausanne a memorandum, signed by Halim-bey Sami, who acted as their chairman, Nesim Ruso and Mehmed Galib, containing demands which Turkey had consistenly opposed while she had been in control of these regions-i.e., (1) the formation of an autonomous region with Salonica as its capital; (2) a guarantee from the great powers that this autonomy would be respected; and (3) European control over this territory. A similar request, supported by italy, was submitted by the Macedonian Rumanians in the area of the Pindus Mountains. An appeal had also been addressed to the peace conference by a group of Slav, who, on instructions from Bulgarian government, demanded the formation of an autonomous Macedonia. In his article "Macedonia and the Peace Conference," Constantin Stefanove wrote: "Autonomy and independence for Macedonia is no new demand on the part of the Macedonians. It is as old as their struggle for freedom. An independant Macedonia, guaranteed by one of the least interested powers-America, Britain or the League of Nations-could certainly both 'save the country and satisfy the wolves." Toward the end of 1919, members of IMRO active in the Seres district issued a declaration in which, inter alia, they demanded the restoration of Macedonia within her natural geographical frontiers, "based cheify on Salonica, the Vardar valley, Skoplje and Bitolj, with its natural geographical and economic hinterland."
The Macedonian emigre movement had considerably intensified its activity against Yugoslavia. Its center at the time was in Switzerland; its leader was Constantin Stefanove and its secretary Blagoje Bojadzhijev, then a student of law. This group had enlisted the support of the national minorities from the area, who, on July 31, 1919, submitted a memorandum to the peace conference signed by N.Talit, on behalf of the Rumanians of Macedonia, Ipedi Zade-bey, merchant from Salonica, Sam Levy, former editor of the Journal de Salonique and L'Epoque, Pancho Dorev, a publicist and "Bulgarian deputy for Bitolj in the Turkish parliament," and Aziz Kiany-bey, a retired colonel from Bitolj.
Somewhat earlier, in June of the same year, the Central Council of the Macedonian Society had addressed an appeal "to the civilized world" which contained four points demanding the formation of an independant Macedonian state. The new state was to be divided into cantons on the Swiss model, and it was emphasized that the rights of all national minorities would be guranteed. In the middle of October of the same year, representations were made to the British Parliament pointing out that Macedonian Bulgars, Turks, Jews, Wallachians and Albanians made up "approximately ninety percent of the total population." It goes without saying that the authors of this document also demanded an independent Macedonia. "All our churches," they declared, "schools and national institutions have been either closed down or taken over by the Serbian and Greek authorities. All our priests, teachers and leading countrymen have been obliged to emigrate, or else have been arrested and liquidated. Use of our lanuage has been forbudden under pain of severe punishment, and our books either banned or destroyed." Justifying their demand for an independant state, they declared that this was the only reasonable solution to the Macedonian problem. "Under these circumstances," they said, "Macedonia would cease to be an apple of discord between the Balkan states. On the contrary, it would provide a link between them for the establishment of a genuine, lasting and progressive Balkan federation."
........it will continue, next post......
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 28, 2008 7:01:34 GMT -5
......continuing from my last post......
Behind all these moves there stood the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Leading circles in this organization had been duscouraged by the failures besetting them on all sides, particularly as there was no hope of assistance from outside and the government of Alexander Stambolisky was their sworn enemy. In November 1922, during his visit to Belgrade, Stambolisky told press representatives that the Macedonians were "a rebellious race" and "a thorn in the side of both Bulgaria and Serbia." He further declared that he was ready to "pack them all into railroad cars and send them off to Yugoslavia." It was at this very juncture that Todor Aleksandrov attempted to establish contact with Stjepan Radich and persuade him to cooperate in the struggle against Yugoslavia. In his article "Todor Aleksandrov and the Croatian Peasant Movement," Radich himself explained the nature of these contacts. According to him, Aleksandrov "succeeded from time to time in sending his trusted supporters to Zagreb to enquire whether the HRSS [Croatian Repbulican Peasant Party] would be willing to join his, Aleksandrov's, revolutionary campaign." Radich replied that "the HRSS pursues its objective by way of firm political organization and such political activity as goes by the name of peasant democracy. The HRSS earnestly recommends this policy of peasant democracy to the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, since it is supported by ninety-nine percent of the peasants, who are by nature pacifists, but who, given proper organization, are capable of becoming the unremitting and indomitable champions of political power for the entire working people, including peasants and industrial workers." The right wing of IMRO did not take Radich's advice. With no prospect, either of help from outside or of obtaining a revision of the peace terms, it continued to concentrate its energies upon terrorism in Southern Serbia, thus inevitably provoking countermeasures and reprials on the part of the state. The state refused to be alarmed by the sallies of the terrorists, even more permit them to set up an irresponsible empire of their own within Yugoslavia. Ivan Mihailov, whom Elisabeth Barker describes as a "killer and a gangster on a large scale, not a revolutionary," was torn between his loyalty to Bulgaria and the propaganda of his organization advocating an independant Macedonia. By his conduct, he caused casualties that were later exploited for propaganda purposes. The whole world resounded with reports of Serbian atrocities against Bulgars and Macedonians in Yugoslavia. With the consolidation of reactionary and expressly anti-Serbian circles in positions of authority in Bulgaria, IMRO was able to intensify its activity, both in Macedonia and abroad. In the middle of June 1927, when the left wing of IMRO had already greatly extended the scale of its activities, the paper La Macedoine began to come out in Geneva. In its first issue, dated June 13, its editor, Simeon Jeftimov, printed a leading article under the heading "Our Program." The paper was officially the organ of IMRO, but was backed by the Bulgarian government, which used it as a means of propagating its views on the Bulgaria character of Macedonia. By dint of systematic and persistent effort, the leaders of IMRO succeeded in uniting and multiplying their organizations abroad, which were particularly numerous in America and Canada, In September 1927, the Central Committee of the Union of Macedonian Political Organizations sent an open letter to Dr. Nikolaj Velimirovich, at that time Bishop of Ohrid, demanding that he vacate his see. On November 17 of the same year, the trial opened in Skoplje of a group of students belonging to "a secret revolutionary organization of Macedonian youth." Counsel for the defense were Dr. Ante Pavelich, later a leader of the Ustashe, Dr Ante Trumbich and Dr. Sekula Drljevich, a leader of the Montenegrin federalists. The future militant alliance between the Ustashe and the champions of the Macedonian cause could already be discerned. A year later, on November 16, 1928, Ivan Mihailov declared in a statement on the warlike aims of IMRO: "IMRO is following events in Yugoslavia closely. It is convinced that the Croats regard the Macedonians claims for autonomy favorably......... If Yugoslavia becomes involved in a war with a foreign power, IMRO will know that its moment has come."
.......continues on with my next post......
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on May 28, 2008 7:37:36 GMT -5
Novi, we are well aware of the Serbian view point on fyrom. In short: Exarchate "brainwashed" the southern Serbs into Bulgarians forcefully. Prooves they were ever Serbs before the supposed brainwashing: none. Thus Serbs justify their loving hug on the fyroms. That hug is protection against the tatars or tartars, as terro likes to repeat. Too bad no historic document give u any right to claim fyrom as Serbian.
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on May 28, 2008 12:08:10 GMT -5
Pazar, it was joke. I know I'm sane too. Anyway, when addressing the 'Macedonian Question' one shouldn't confine the topic to the interwar period. The 'Macedonian question' should be addressed into several stages starting from the 6th and 7th c. Macedonia was a part of both the First and the Second Bulgarian Empires for nearly 7 centuries, Skopje and Ohrid were Bulgarian capitals. The region was annexed by the Serbian Empire in the mid 14th century; however, Serb control only lasted for about 30 years. This is why all Ottoman sources designate the population of Macedonia as mostly Bulgarian. Additionally, most western scholars that addressed the Macedonian question in the late 19th and early 20th c. designated the population of Macedonia as being about 80% Bulgarian. There is only one western scholar that I know of who called the population Serbian. Furthermore, the information that you posted is mostly representative of the Yugoslavian way of politics. The Bulgarian Prime Minister Stamboliyski is quoted was publicly declaring himself as a Yugoslav, not as a Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 28, 2008 18:53:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on May 28, 2008 21:41:12 GMT -5
Novi, I notice that your stand point is that Macedonians are a mix of Bulgarians and Serbians. I agree that today there is a very strong Serbian influence in Macedonia, which first began in the early 20th c. Prior to the 1900’s, however, there don’t seem to be any sources that claim any sort of Serbian self identification in Macedonia. Hence, I don’t understand where you think the Serbian factor comes into the formation of the Macedonian identity prior to the 1900’s. Although, it is normal that linguistically Bulgarians from Macedonia would be closer to Serbians than Bulgarians from Dobrudja or Thrace as Macedonia borders Serbia. But, it is important to remember that if you take into account the entire Macedonian dialect, as I am sure you know, the majority of reputable scholars from outside of present day Macedonia agree that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. Just by looking at the dry facts, the only Serbian presence in Macedonia (before the 20th c.) was during the Serbian Empire. That presence lasted for about 30 years or so. On the other hand, as I mentioned, Macedonia was a part of both Bulgarian Empires for about 600-700 years. And, if we get really technical, there was a time when Bulgaria and Croatia had a common border. In fact, entire Serbia was a part of Bulgaria longer than Macedonia was a part of Serbia. Anyway, 30 years of control over the land was not enough for the Bulgarian Empire to populate Serbia with Bulgarians. Likewise, I don’t think 30 years was enough for the Serbian Empire to populate Macedonia with Serbians. Additionally, I’ve never read anything about mass migrations from Serbia into Macedonia during the Ottoman Empire. So I’m not sure what you are basing the Serbian ethnic contribution to the Macedonian province. By the way, I tend to focus on mostly western sources as I think they can provide a less biased view.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on May 28, 2008 22:29:22 GMT -5
.....continuing on.....
Stephen Graham states that the connection between Pavelich and IMRO was established in Vienna after the former had left Yugoslavia, and that this was done at the request of italy, who was then actively helping the Organization. For this purpose, IMRO dispatched to Vienna Naum Tomalevski, who was subsequently, when disputes arose within the ranks of IMRO, murdered by King Alexander's assassin. At first, the "United IMRO" also had its eye upon Pavelich, for it had been disillusioned by his visit to Sofia. In respect of this visit, R. Radev, in his article "Change Your Allies, Pavelich!" wrote: "If the entire Croatian people were to accept the orientation of Dr Pavelich, it would have to enter the struggle side by side with the italian fascists, who are keeping the whole of Istria and part of Dalmatia under their yoke and who at any moment threaten to occupy the whole of Croatian Dalmatia......It is no longer open to doubt who is the potentical ally of the Croats in their struggle for liberation from the tyranny of Belgrade. Their allies can only be the national revolutionary organizations of the Balkan peoples, who for decades have been fighting for Macedonia's freedom from her Balkan oppressors and resisting the great imperialist powers, who are aiming at the complete subjugation of the Balkans.....We are convinced that the HSS [Croatian Peasant Party], the Montenegran federalists and all the other oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia will join in a single front with the true Macedonian revolutionaries of the United IMRO, which is vigorously championing the freedom of all the Balkan peoples and a federation of Balkan republics against the world imperialists....The movement led by Dr. Pavelich, whether consciously or not, can only prove prejudicial to the freedom of the Croats and the other Balkan peoples. Let us, we emphasize, enter the struggle against the dictatorship of Belgrade with all the means in our power-side by side, not with the murderers of Bulgarian workers and peasants, but with the true representatives of the liberation struggle of the Bulgarian and Macedonian peoples." It was at this stage that the work of IMRO was hampered by the outbreak of violent discord among the leaders of its right wing. The parties concerned were Aleksandar Protogerov on the one hand and lvan Mihailov and Georgi Pop-Hristov on the other, who, according to Gilbert in der Maur, advocated the inclusion of Macedonia in Bulgaria. Protogerov was accused of murdering Todor Aleksandrov, but was himself assasinated on July 28, 1928. This was followed by the violent rule of Mihailov, who declared in a statement that Protogerov "owed his popularity, not to his membership of IMRO, but to his work as an officer in the Bulgarian army. He always felt himself to be such primarily, and in this respect went to such lengths, that he encouraged the claims, in the Macedonian areas of Bulgaria, of Bulgarian nationalist organizations that demanded the return to Bulgaria of the regions that had been taken from her, thus placing himself in direct opposition to the Macedonian autonomists, who want a single state independant of Bulgaria."
The visit of Pavelich and Perchec to Sofia merely served to confirm the cooperation already agreed upon between these two movements advocating separation from Yugoslavia. Filled with enthusiasm by this visit, the editor of La Macedoine wrote: "The politicians of Belgrade themselves spurred the various peoples of Yugoslavia to help one another in the struggle against their common enemy-Belgrade. The Croatian-Macedonian front has been openly established and publicly announced. It has been joined by the Montenegrans and eight hundred thousand Yugoslav Albanians." During their visit, Pavelich and Perchec signed a declaration afforming their intention to collaborate with the official Macedonian Committee, which at that time was headed by Dr. Stanishev. On January 10, 1930, Dr Stanishev wrote: "We Macedonians claim to be better Bulgarians than those in the [Bulgarian] Kingdom proper.....Agreement already exists between the Croats and Bulgars, and soon they will be joined by others in the common cause of liberation." The declaration stated that both sides had come to the conclusion that the Croats and Macedonians were obliged to win their own political freedom, their rights as human beings and as citizens and the complete independance of Croatia and Macedonia. Just before the declaration was signed, La Macedoine published an appeal from Croats, Macedonians and Montenegrans in America and Canada demanding complete independance for all three groups.
This policy of collaboration was pusued obstinately and systematically: allies were sought on all sides in the struggle against Yugoslavia. Congresses and meetings, an organized press campaign and frequent direct appeals to representatives of the great powers and to international forums-everything was directed toward a definite goal-that of showing the world at large that the Serbs, as a nation, were persecuting the national monorities. Typical of these measures was the joint conference of Macedonian and Croatian representatives held in New York on August 17 - 19, 1929, at which it was announced that a common Croatian-Macedonian front in Europe and America had been established "to fight for the freedom of the Croatian and Macedonian peoples." A little later, in November 1929, an appeal, signed by C. Criscuolo d'Antivari as chairman of the "Montenegrans in emigration," was sent to Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of Great Britian. According to Pavelich, the total number of victims of the alleged Serbian terror in Yugoslavia during the period from January 6, 1929, to June 1930 amounted to 76 killed in political prisions, 3 condemned to death, 1 condemned to hard labor for life, and 319 sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. According to bruno Mlinarich, 230 persons were hanged or otherwise killed in Yugoslavia between December 1, 1918, and April 10, 1941, when the Independant Croatian State was proclaimed under Pavelich. On December 15 - 17, 1929, the fifth Congress of Macedonian Youth was held in Sofia. In the message of greeting sent by this congress to the youth of Croatia, it was stated: "The youth of Macedonia today enthusiastically welcomes the creation of a common Croatian-Macedonian front. It is happy at the thought that the other non-Serbian peoples, who are suffering no less than we under the present blood-thirsty regime of Belgrade, will soon join this front. In the belif and hope that the struggle of the Croats and Macedonians will grow daily stronger, the Congress warmly greets the youth of militant Croatia and sends them its wishes for success in the struggle." On January 9, 1929, Konstanin Stefanove, in an article entitled "The Macedonian Parliament," declared that a Croatian-Macedonian war front had been set up.
The eighth Congress of IMRO, held in Bulgaria toward the beginning of April 1932, sent a message of greeting to emigre Croats which stated: "The Congress sends a fraternal greeting to the revolutionary Croatian organization, to the Croatian people and to all the oppressed minorities in the Balkan Peninsula, who have united in order to remove the injustices sanctioned by treaty and to win for themselves political freedom and independance."
The climax of the concerted action by Ustashe and Macedonian independents was the conspiracy against King Alexander, who, especially since January 6, 1929, had been the chief protagonist of the state they were fighting. For all of them, the removal of Alexander from the historical arenameant the destruction of the central pillar of that state which they regarded as an essential obstacle to the realization of their plans. They did not even conceal their murderous intentions: on May 6, 1934, La Macedoine printed the full text of the death sentence pronounced upon Alexander by the "Central Croatian Union" at Seraing, in Belgium. This sentence had originally been published in Nezavisna hrvatska drzhava on April 16, 1934. The text reads:
........continues with my next post.........
|
|